Flat Earth Christians

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No no, I'm not one of them. I think the bible should be read no way near litterally, believe me on that. Only christian fundamentalists think that. I'm not even near a fundamentalist in this sense.

But people believing that the earth was created 6000 years ago, disregarding all scientific observations and proofs that it isn't, of the only reason that i powers of that time. There is nothing holy or sacred by the words of the bible, not at all.

The thing with you, Fabian, is that you backpedal constantly. You make general statements about Christianity, and when called upon by people who explain how narrow are your views, you always "escape" by saying that you weren't talking about those Christians.

It's only painfully clear what your views about Christians (in general) are. I would have much more respect for you if had the integrity to defend them.

Originally posted by Palynka
The thing with you, Fabian, is that you backpedal constantly. You make general statements about Christianity, and when called upon by people who explain how narrow are your views, you always "escape" by saying that you weren't talking about those Christians.

It's only painfully clear what your views about Christians (in general) are. I would have much more respect for you if had the integrity to defend them.

Listen, the fundamentalist young earth creationists, they are called themselves christians, they say *they* are the ones believeing in the right ways, the rightous way. Now I ask you, do you defend them, Palynka? Do you defend those who read the bible letter by letter, believing everything they can read there, letter by letter? I know you don't.

I have said, many times, that I'm not against those having healthy religious beliefs. Fundamentalists has not, creationists has not. I cannot label every branch of the christian flora and give them all a specific judgement, one by one. So I criticize those christians for the reasons I state in the thread or in the posting.

In this case I criticize those who think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, because it says so in the bible, but in the same time denying that the Earth is flat, even when it says so in the bible.

I say that Earth is not flat, science says that, at the same time that I say that the Universe was into being billions of years ago, science says that.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Listen, the fundamentalist young earth creationists, they are called themselves christians, they say *they* are the ones believeing in the right ways, the rightous way. Now I ask you, do you defend them, Palynka? Do you defend those who read the bible letter by letter, believing everything they can read there, letter by letter? I know you don't.

I have ...[text shortened]... ame time that I say that the Universe was into being billions of years ago, science says that.

I don't defend YEC nor literalists. Like you said, I've labeled them as narrow-minded.

What I don't like is statements like the ones in your opening post that generalize accross Christian beliefs. Things like:
To be a true christian, then you have to believe that the Earth is Flat in accordance of the bible.

But, of course, we should have known that "true Christian" actually just means 'fundamentalist young earth creationists' in Fabianish.

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't defend YEC nor literalists. Like you said, I've labeled them as narrow-minded.

What I don't like is statements like the ones in your opening post that generalize accross Christian beliefs. Things like:
To be a true christian, then you have to believe that the Earth is Flat in accordance of the bible.

But, of course, we should have know ...[text shortened]... ue Christian" actually just means 'fundamentalist young earth creationists' in Fabianish.

Oh, now I see. And in this light, it was easy to interprete the posting as you did, I'm sorry for that.

In the Science Forum there is a character, creationsist and fundamentalist, having the right and rightous christian belief, as you would describe as ... well, you know. He believes in a young Earth, denying science, and seems to recognize himself as a true christian.

In that thread, I compare the Young Earth Creationists with people that believes in a flat Earth. I had him in my thoughts when I wrote the first posting of this thread, not christian people in general. I perhaps should chose the Science Forum for this thread, but as it is not Science it fit better in the Spiritual Forum, where, I'm sure, he also frequent.

Where I live the YEC are in very small minority among the christians. The christians I know, among my friends, has a healthy and loving belief. I give them all respect, perhaps because they also give me respect, even if we have different foundations in beliefs. So I don't have low feelings for christians in general, but I certainly have low feelings for christians that don't respect other people having different views of what is right and wrong.

So, again, I'm sorry for the confusion, christians in general is okay, even if some are not.

So, the question is, is it coherent to say that this planet is 6000 years old, because the Bible can be made to say so, but believe that it has a spherical form, contrary to statements of its flatness in the Bible.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, now I see. And in this light, it was easy to interprete the posting as you did, I'm sorry for that.

In the Science Forum there is a character, creationsist and fundamentalist, having the right and rightous christian belief, as you would describe as ... well, you know. He believes in a young Earth, denying science, and seems to recognize himself as ...[text shortened]... o, again, I'm sorry for the confusion, christians in general is okay, even if some are not.

Fair enough. 🙂

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So, the question is, is it coherent to say that this planet is 6000 years old, because the Bible can be made to say so, but believe that it has a spherical form, contrary to statements of its flatness in the Bible.

I think there is about the same credibility of the two of them. The bible claims the both, I claim neither.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So, the question is, is it coherent to say that this planet is 6000 years old, because the Bible can be made to say so, but believe that it has a spherical form, contrary to statements of its flatness in the Bible.

As far as I know, the Bible doesn't state it is flat, although it may seem implied from certain passages.


For the sake of argument:
I'm not sure how much of it is actually implied by the translation, though. For example, while looking for the passage mentioned in the opening post, I found this translation:

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
4:10
Here are the visions of my mind while I was on my bed. While I was watching, there was a tree in the middle of the land. It was enormously tall.

4:11 The tree grew large and strong. Its top reached far into the sky; it could be seen from the borders of all the land.

This could be interpreted as the borders of the country, not the planet. There are footnotes to how other translations treat this passage which include the one of the OP. Does anyone know how it is in Aramaic?

Originally posted by Palynka
As far as I know, the Bible doesn't state it is flat, although it may seem implied from certain passages.

Nor does it state the age of the Earth.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Nor does it state the age of the Earth.

True. Where did YEC get the 6000 years from?

Originally posted by Palynka
As far as I know, the Bible doesn't state it is flat, although it may seem implied from certain passages.


For the sake of argument:
I'm not sure how much of it is actually implied by the translation, though. For example, while looking for the passage mentioned in the opening post, I found this translation:

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
[i ...[text shortened]... ons treat this passage which include the one of the OP. Does anyone know how it is in Aramaic?

In another translation it says “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” The "earth's farthest bounds" has nothing to do with the political divisions of the earth's surface..

We should go back to the sources to find what what is really written.

Originally posted by Palynka
True. Where did YEC get the 6000 years from?

James Ussher (sometimes spelled Usher) (4 January 1581–21 March 1656) was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625–1656. He was a prolific scholar, who most famously published a chronology that purported to time and date creation to the night preceding October 23, 4004 BC, according to the Julian calendar, which in the Gregorian calendar would be 21 September 4004 BCE.

In one source I have, he even stated what time on the day the Universe was created.
Edit: Found it. The time was 14:30 Sunday the 23 october.
Edit2: Funny, Wikipedia says 21 september. Perhaps it can be explained by the two calendars, the Julian 21 september and the Gregorian 23 october...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
James Ussher (sometimes spelled Usher) (4 January 1581–21 March 1656) was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625–1656. He was a prolific scholar, who most famously published a chronology that purported to time and date creation to the night preceding October 23, 4004 BC, according to the Julian calendar, which in the Gregori ...[text shortened]... e on the day the Universe was created.
Edit: Found it. The time was 14:30 Sunday the 23 october

Yes, but Ussher's calculation can be disputed. As KJ says, "... there are several views on
how old the earth is, read Gen 1:1 and 1:2 and tell me how much time passed between those two verses? So if there are billions of years there and countless events that could mean the universe is billions of years old, and you could believe that and be a good Christian."

So a tenacious YEC is an Ussherite more than anything else.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, but Ussher's calculation can be disputed. As KJ says, "... there are several views on
how old the earth is, read Gen 1:1 and 1:2 and tell me how much time passed between those two verses? So if there are billions of years there and countless events that could mean the universe is billions of years old, and you could believe that and be a good Christian."

So a tenacious YEC is an Ussherite more than anything else.

Of course it can be disputed. By science. Usscher didn't know anything of radiological methods, geological methods, astronomical methods, etc, he is excused. People of our days cannot. KJ is not an authority, he knows nothing about science.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Of course it can be disputed. By science. Usscher didn't know anything of radiological methods, geological methods, astronomical methods, etc, he is excused. People of our days cannot. KJ is not an authority, he knows nothing about science.

No, but he can see that an indefinite period of time may have elapsed between those two verses, enabling him to dispute the figure of 6000 years without recourse to science. You can see that, can't you?

The title 'Primate' always makes me laugh.